Ross v. South Dakota
271 U.S. 646, 46 S. Ct. 487
Opinion
Dismissed. for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448; sec. 2, 39 Stat. 726; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5-6; (2) Farrell v. O’Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Toop v. Ulysses Land Co., 237 U. S. 580, 583; Piedmont Power & Light Co. v. Town of Graham, 253 U. S. 193, 195; Seaboard Air Line v. Padgett, 236 U. S. 668, 671; (3) Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22; 31.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ross v. South Dakota, 271 U.S. 646, 46 S. Ct. 487 (1926).
271 U.S. 646 (Ross v. South Dakota) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Missouri v. Lewis
101 U.S. 22 (Supreme Court, 1880)
Farrell v. O'Brien
199 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1905)
Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Padgett
236 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1915)
Toop v. Ulysses Land Co.
237 U.S. 580 (Supreme Court, 1915)
Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. City of Carrollton
252 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1920)
Piedmont Power & Light Co. v. Town of Graham
253 U.S. 193 (Supreme Court, 1920)